TY - JOUR

T1 - The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire v2.0 Showed Consistent Factor Structure Across Six Working Samples

AU - Abma, Femke I.

AU - Bültmann, Ute

AU - Amick, Benjamin C.

AU - Arends, Iris

AU - Dorland, Heleen F.

AU - Flach, Peter A.

AU - van der Klink, Jac J.L.

AU - van de Ven, Hardy A.

AU - Bjørner, Jakob Bue

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Objective: The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire v2.0 (WRFQ) is an outcome measure linking a persons’ health to the ability to meet work demands in the twenty-first century. We aimed to examine the construct validity of the WRFQ in a heterogeneous set of working samples in the Netherlands with mixed clinical conditions and job types to evaluate the comparability of the scale structure. Methods: Confirmatory factor and multi-group analyses were conducted in six cross-sectional working samples (total N = 2433) to evaluate and compare a five-factor model structure of the WRFQ (work scheduling demands, output demands, physical demands, mental and social demands, and flexibility demands). Model fit indices were calculated based on RMSEA ≤ 0.08 and CFI ≥ 0.95. After fitting the five-factor model, the multidimensional structure of the instrument was evaluated across samples using a second order factor model. Results: The factor structure was robust across samples and a multi-group model had adequate fit (RMSEA = 0.63, CFI = 0.972). In sample specific analyses, minor modifications were necessary in three samples (final RMSEA 0.055–0.080, final CFI between 0.955 and 0.989). Applying the previous first order specifications, a second order factor model had adequate fit in all samples. Conclusion: A five-factor model of the WRFQ showed consistent structural validity across samples. A second order factor model showed adequate fit, but the second order factor loadings varied across samples. Therefore subscale scores are recommended to compare across different clinical and working samples.

AB - Objective: The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire v2.0 (WRFQ) is an outcome measure linking a persons’ health to the ability to meet work demands in the twenty-first century. We aimed to examine the construct validity of the WRFQ in a heterogeneous set of working samples in the Netherlands with mixed clinical conditions and job types to evaluate the comparability of the scale structure. Methods: Confirmatory factor and multi-group analyses were conducted in six cross-sectional working samples (total N = 2433) to evaluate and compare a five-factor model structure of the WRFQ (work scheduling demands, output demands, physical demands, mental and social demands, and flexibility demands). Model fit indices were calculated based on RMSEA ≤ 0.08 and CFI ≥ 0.95. After fitting the five-factor model, the multidimensional structure of the instrument was evaluated across samples using a second order factor model. Results: The factor structure was robust across samples and a multi-group model had adequate fit (RMSEA = 0.63, CFI = 0.972). In sample specific analyses, minor modifications were necessary in three samples (final RMSEA 0.055–0.080, final CFI between 0.955 and 0.989). Applying the previous first order specifications, a second order factor model had adequate fit in all samples. Conclusion: A five-factor model of the WRFQ showed consistent structural validity across samples. A second order factor model showed adequate fit, but the second order factor loadings varied across samples. Therefore subscale scores are recommended to compare across different clinical and working samples.

KW - Confirmatory factor analyses

KW - Validity

KW - Work role functioning

KW - Workers

U2 - 10.1007/s10926-017-9722-1

DO - 10.1007/s10926-017-9722-1

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 28889328

AN - SCOPUS:85028955242

VL - 28

SP - 465

EP - 474

JO - Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

JF - Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

SN - 1053-0487

IS - 3

ER -